Journal of Gender Studies Vol. 17, No. 2, June 2008, 131–146 RESEARCH ARTICLE ‘Pack a more powerful punch’ and ‘lay the pipe’: erectile enhancement discourse as a body project for masculinity Sarah Jane Brubaker* and Jennifer A. Johnson L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA ( Received 1 May 2007; final version received 23 October 2007 ) In this article, we analyze erectile enhancement as a postmodern body project that (re)codes hegemonic masculinity through new means. Erectile enhancement Internet ads create a text of masculinity through constructing a crisis of masculinity and selling the solution. The crisis is loss of power, control and the ability to dominate; the solution is a larger and more powerful penis that will give men back their sense of manhood. Although the erectile enhancement discourse suggests new ways of constructing masculinity – through consumption and an elevated importance of the body in gender identity – the ads reassert hegemonic ideals, i.e. the othering of and domination over women and phallocentrism. Keywords: the body; masculinity; violence; postmodern; erectile enhancement; phallocentrism Recent scholarly work has addressed the shift from modern to postmodern society in terms of production’s displacement by consumption, and particularly for men, the subsequent elevation of the body from the site of work to the site of identity. Scholars have focused on the consequences of this shift for men, as ‘the body is a site not only for the performance or enactments of masculinity, but also for its profound and intimate regulation’ (Gill et al. 2005, p. 58). Addressing this cultural change in the relationship between the body and identity as an ‘identity project’ (Featherstone 1991, Shilling 1993) or ‘body project’ (Haiken 2000, Fishman 2004, Rubin 2004), researchers have suggested that these shifts in postmodern society have reconstructed masculinity in new ways; that men are defined now more than ever through their consumption, sexuality and physical appearance. Some suggest that because of these trends, traditional gender boundaries are becoming blurred and men are becoming, in these ways, more like women. Others suggest that although postmodern society has posed some challenges to traditional constructions of masculinity, men’s subjective experience in response to these trends, as well as how texts code masculinity, indicate various degrees of men’s resistance to becoming more like women or to other indications of gender equality (Messner and Montez de Oca 2005). In this article, we analyze erectile enhancement as a postmodern body project. Based on an examination of texts, i.e. Internet (email and website) ads for erectile enhancement *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 0958-9236 print/ISSN 1465-3869 online q 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09589230802008899 http://www.informaworld.com 132 S.J. Brubaker and J.A. Johnson products, we argue that the erectile enhancement discourse (re)codes hegemonic masculinity through new means. Erectile enhancement Internet ads create a text of masculinity through constructing a crisis of masculinity and selling the solution. The crisis is loss of power, control and the ability to dominate; the solution is a larger and more powerful penis that will give men back their sense of manhood. Although the erectile enhancement discourse suggests new way of constructing masculinity – through consumption and an elevated importance of the body in gender identity – the ads reassert hegemonic ideals, i.e. the othering of, and domination over, women and phallocentrism. Masculinity in postmodern society Gender and body scholars have focused on relationships between the appearance and function of men’s bodies and masculine identity (McCabe and Ricciardelli 2004, Kriegel 2006, Messner 2006) and they have examined the recent increase in media and marketing attention to men’s bodies and men’s responses to this trend (Kimmel 1994, Bordo 1999, Hatoum and Belle 2004). Some scholars argue that men’s greater participation in consumption and the value of the body to identity have begun to blur gender lines. For example, Haiken (2000) traces the historical development of men’s use of cosmetic surgery and other forms of enhancement technologies as a reflection of various constructions of masculinity over time. She argues that although men’s current relationship to the ‘physical market’ does appear to be motivated in part by the more traditional ‘masculine drive for economic success’, it also suggests that they, like women, are now ‘vulnerable to market-driven cultural imperatives regarding physical attractiveness’ (p. 388). Similarly, Gill et al. (2005) point to the increased visibility of the male body in media and popular culture and the depiction of male bodies as idealized and eroticized. They identify the influences on this trend as the gay movement, feminism, the style press, consumerism and ultimately, ‘the marketing of heterosexual women’s desire’ as the source of the gaze (p. 39). Tiefer (1992) points to the rising importance of sexuality in personal life in postmodern society as other sources of personal fulfillment and connection with others wither. Also emphasizing consumer culture, she argues that an increasing number of products aimed at enhancing sexual experiences will continue to enter the market. Specifically, ‘[m]en will remain vulnerable to the expansion of the clinical domain so long as masculinity rests heavily on a particular type of physiological function’ (p. 463). We discuss this limited definition of masculine sexuality further below. Additional researchers have begun to explore men’s new primary role as consumers and how their bodies have become sites of identity. For example, Alexander (2003) analyzed ads in Men’s Health magazine to explore its construction of ‘[b]randed masculinity[,] rooted in consumer capitalism wherein profit can be produced by generating insecurity about one’s body and one’s consumer choices and then providing consumers with the correct answer or product in articles and advertisements’ (p. 551). She found that the magazine branded masculinity as muscles, fashion sense, and the appearance of financial success. Some scholars suggest that in response to these new emphases on consumption and the body as a site of identity, codes traditionally more associated with femininity, men are experiencing a ‘crisis in masculinity’ (Kimmel 1993, Media Education Foundation 1999, Poldsaar 2003). They suggest that men are responding to this crisis through increased social space for men’s bodies and emphasis on size, strength and violence as valued components of masculinity in popular culture (Kimmel and Mahler 2003). For example, Journal of Gender Studies 133 Soulliere (2005), in her analysis of professional wrestling, demonstrates how male wrestlers reassert dominant masculinity through violence, emotional restraint, competition and toughness, despite any inroads toward gender equality that women wrestlers might have made. Similarly, Messner and Montez de Oca (2005) suggest that, although shifts in postmodern culture pose challenges to traditional constructions of masculinity, there is evidence throughout popular culture of resistance to such change. They identify several themes from the ads that suggest a strong ‘revenge-against-women’ appeal. On the other hand, Thompson and Holt (2004) argue that men’s consumptive practices are not directly constructed in response to a crisis of masculinity. Rather, They play off the contradictions inherent in phallic masculinity to serve their particular and varied identity projects, and they soften the rough edges of their phallic pursuits by incorporating feminine motifs. Rather than threatening masculine identity, the feminine becomes a resource that men use to facilitate their own phallic identity games. (p. 334) Some researchers have identified specific ways in which men resist challenges to new constructions of masculinity emerging in postmodernity that threaten to blur gender lines, even as they engage in consumption and body practices. Two such ways are the rejection of vanity and phallocentrism, which we discuss in the following sections. Rejection of vanity Supporting their argument that postmodern, consumer-based society is blurring gender lines, some scholars suggest that men are becoming more vain, i.e. embracing traditionally feminine ideologies. For example, Luciano writes: ‘We are clearly witnessing the evolution of an obsession with body image, especially among middle-class men, and a corresponding male appropriation of, in the words of the feminist Barbara Ehrenreich, “status-seeking activities ... once seen as feminine”’ (cited in Luciano 2001, p. 4). On the other hand, some scholars point to both heterosexual and gay men’s attempts to justify their efforts to enhance physical attractiveness as motivated beyond pure vanity, resisting charges that they are engaging in feminine behaviors. As Haiken (2000) suggests, the fact that ‘the culture of masculinity, as it developed in the United States, was homophobic’ (p. 392), prevented men from becoming significant consumers of cosmetics, cosmetic surgery or any other product associated with femininity and aimed specifically at enhancing physical appearance. Hennen (2005) describes ways in which a group of gay men, those who identify with the ‘Bear’ subculture, engage in identity work that distinguishes them from more stereotypical gay men, including their rejection of more effeminate